Thanks for your review, Francis! Can the authors check the comments? Thanks.
With regards to RFC 2119 keywords, if I understand the point correctly, I wouldn’t worry too much about the appearance of lower case keywords, if they indeed are meant to be just English and not keywords. That is the current practice since a long time ago. I don’t think we need additional text in the document to explain this. However, if there is a case where these really are meant to be keywords, then they should, I think, be in capital letters. Thanks, Jari On 02 Sep 2015, at 12:19, Francis Dupont <francis.dup...@fdupont.fr> wrote: > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area > Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed > by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just > like any other last call comments. > > For more information, please see the FAQ at > > <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. > > Document: draft-ietf-ecrit-additional-data-34.txt > Reviewer: Francis Dupont > Review Date: 20150828 > IETF LC End Date: 20150824 > IESG Telechat date: 20150903 > > Summary: Almost Ready > > Major issues: None > > Minor issues: > This document uses and even redefines RFC 2119 keywords outside the > *formal* wording of RFC 2119: quoting the RFC 2119 (Abstract): > "These words are often capitalized." > This formally means a keyword in lower case is still a keyword which > must (MUST :-) be interpreted as described in RFC 2119. IMHO this is > for very old IETF documents: any IETF document published less than 20 > years ago uses full upper case keywords when they have to be interpreted > so this statement in the RFC 2119 Abstract is more source of confusion > than clarification. > If it can be accepted I propose to add an exception for this document > saying that RFC 2119 keywords are capitalized. > > Nits/editorial comments: > - Abstract page 1: every emergency call carry -> carries > > - 1 page 4: every emergency call carry -> carries > > - 2 page 6: the place where I suggest to add that RFC 2119 keywords > are capitalized and in general keywords are case sensitive. > > - 4.1.4 page 13: an example of a "may" and a "should" which are not > RFC 2119 keywords but only common English. > > - 4.2.1 page 18: neccessarily -> necessarily > > - 4.3.8 page 27: defined . -> defined. > > - 5.2 page 36 and 5.3 page 38: > I am afraid the provided-by construct in the example is unbalanced > (i.e., <provided-by -> <provided-by>) > > - 8 page 62, 9 page 65 (twice): as security and privacy considerations > can be read independently I suggest to replace the 3 "may"s by > equivalent wordings ("can", "be allowed to", etc). > > - 10.1.9 page 70: registation -> registration > > - 10.4 pages 72 - 76 (many): > The IESG <i...@ietf.org> -> The IESG <i...@ietf.org> > > - 10.6 page 82: ec...@ietf.org -> ec...@ietf.org > > - 11 page 83: benefitted -> benefited > > Note I didn't check the schemas (even you had the nice attention to > provide them directly, cf appendix B). I reviewed the 33 version > (so at the exception of spelling errors I gave the 33.txt page numbers) > and verified the 33-34 diff. > > Regards > > francis.dup...@fdupont.fr > > _______________________________________________ > Gen-art mailing list > Gen-art@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
